Michael J. Lennon
experiencerAndrews Kurth Kenyon
Image of a vault
Intellectual Property & Technology Powerhouse
{photo}

collaborative

Network

focused

Contact Information

New York – Battery Park

One Broadway
New York, NY 10004
P: +1.212.908.6439
F: +1.212.425.5288
vCard
{photo}

Michael J. Lennon

Partner

New York – Battery Park Office
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004
P: +1.212.908.6439
F: +1.212.425.5288

Michael’s practice focuses on complex litigation, licensing and business transactions relating to intellectual property rights. 

Over his more than three decades of practicing law, Michael has represented and acted as an advisor to numerous multinational technology companies in industries ranging from medical devices to wind power systems. In transactional matters, Michael acts as both legal counsel and as a strategic advisor to his clients, and he has negotiated numerous agreements relating to the acquisition, licensing and monetization of intellectual property. He has appeared as trial counsel in more than 100 patent infringement, trade secret, licensing and patent-antitrust lawsuits in the United States federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, representing, among other clients, Aladdin Knowledge Systems, Ltd.; Boston Scientific Corporation; Daimler AG; Hewlett Packard; Intel Corp.; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Siemens AG; and the Robert Bosch Group and Volkswagen Group companies.

Michael’s accomplishments and experience as a leading IP litigation attorney and strategic advisor have been recognized by Managing Intellectual Property (a New York “IP Star”), The US Legal 500 (a “leading lawyer,” “hugely experienced,” “first-rate trial lawyer,” and an elite "Leading Lawyer"), Chambers & Partners USA (“universally recommended as ‘a professional of high standing in the IP world’”), U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers in America®, IAM 250: The World’s Leading Patent & Technology Licensing Lawyers, and IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, as well as IAM 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists

Michael is the author of many articles on the subject of intellectual property licensing and litigation and the development and implementation of IP strategies, and the treatise Drafting Technology Patent License Agreements published by Wolters Kluwer. He is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property and the Licensing Executives Society, among others.

Representative Experience

  • Signal IP, Inc. (Marathon Patent Group) v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc., et al. (2-14-cv-03113, C.D. CA 2014), in which the court granted Volkswagen/Bentley’s motion to dismiss Signal’s willful infringement allegations and agreed with Volkswagen/Bentley’s claim construction arguments that the asserted claims of three of six Signal (formerly Delphi) patents were invalid for indefiniteness, and entered partial judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims, in infringement litigation relating to automotive cruise control, engine control and passenger restraint system technology.
  • Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Volkswagen AG, et al. (2-13-cv-11389, 11 405, 11511, 11512, E.D. MI 2013), in which the court granted Volkswagen Group of America/Volkswagen AG/Audi AG’s motion to stay in view of USPTO reexamination proceedings and the USPTO rejected as invalid and cancelled the asserted claims of seven of eight Beacon patents relating to navigation system technology in response to Volkswagen’s requests for reexamination.
  • Norman IP Holdings, LLC (Altitude Capital Partners LLC and Saxon Innovations, LLC) v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Infineon Technologies North America Corporation, ST Microelectronics, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and RPX Corporation (6-12-cv-00523, E.D. TX 2012), in which the USPTO rejected and cancelled the asserted claims of all five Norman patents as invalid in reexamination proceedings requested by Volkswagen, and negotiation of worldwide patent portfolio license on behalf of The Volkswagen Group and related settlement and dismissal with prejudice of infringement litigation relating to semiconductor technology.
  • Effectively Illuminated Pathways LLC (IP Navigation Group) v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc., et. al. (6-11-cv-00034, E.D. TX 2011), in which the USPTO rejected and cancelled all the claims of the EIP patent as invalid in reexamination proceedings requested by Volkswagen, and dismissal with prejudice of infringement litigation against Volkswagen Group of America and Bentley Motors relating to automotive lighting technology in view of the USPTO reexamination proceedings.
  • Light Transformation Technologies LLC (Acacia Research Group, Inc.) v. Anderson Custom Electronics, Inc., et al. (2-09-cv-00354, E.D. TX 2009), in which the court granted Volkswagen Group of America’s motion to stay in view of USPTO reexamination proceedings and related dismissal with prejudice of infringement litigation relating to automotive lighting technology in view of USPTO PTAB rejection of the asserted claim of LTT’s patent as invalid.
  • Service Reminder, LLC (Acacia Research Group, Inc.) v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (2-10-cv-12201, E.D. MI 2012), in which the court granted Volkswagen Group of America’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity (affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit) in infringement litigation relating to automotive vehicle system monitoring technology.
  • MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., et al. (2-07-cv-00289, E.D. TX 2010), in which the court granted Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and motions to dismiss MHL’s complaint for lack of standing (affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit) in infringement litigation relating to automotive vehicle monitoring system technology.
  • Cloud Farm Associates LP v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et. al. (1-10-cv-00502 D DE 2010), in which the plaintiff patent holder stipulated to the entry of judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of four asserted patents.
  • Donaldson Company, Inc. v. Mann+Hummel USA, Inc., et al. (0-07-cv-04136, DMN 2007), settlement and dismissal of infringement litigation relating to automotive filter technology and related mediation and negotiation of worldwide patent portfolio license on behalf of Mann+Hummel.
  • Goss International Americas, Inc. v. MAN Roland, Inc. and MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG (1-03-cv-00513, D. NH 2006), in which the court granted Goss’s motions for summary judgment of infringement, summary judgment of no inequitable conduct and no unenforceability, and summary judgment dismissing MAN Roland’s antitrust counterclaims, and denied seven MAN Roland motions for summary judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability, and related negotiation of worldwide patent portfolio license and favorable settlement for Goss of infringement litigation relating to printing press technology.
  • Thebaud v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (1:06-cv-11199, D. MA 2007), in which the court granted MBUSA’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing in litigation for patent infringement relating to passenger seat headrests.
  • DaimlerChrysler AG and Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc. v. Feuling Advanced Technologies, Inc., (3:00-cv-01541, S.D. CA 2000, 2003, reported at 276 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 295 F. Supp. 2d 729, and 313 F. Supp. 2d 703), declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability by Daimler, in which the court ruled two asserted patents relating to automotive engine technology unenforceable for inequitable conduct and awarding attorneys’ fees and costs after a bifurcated trial.
  • Feuling Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Penske Motorcars, Inc., et al. (2:00-cv-05314, C.D. Cal. 2000), granting Penske Motors and other Mercedes-Benz dealership motions to dismiss complaint for patent infringement based on the “customer suit exception” rule.
  • Keith Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler AG (2-00-cv-75350, E.D. MI 2002, 2003, reported at 237 F. Supp. 2d 789 and 295 F. Supp. 2d 729), in which the court granted DaimlerChrysler AG’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and dismissing claims of trade secret misappropriation and unjust enrichment in litigation relating to automotive lighting technology.
  • Robert Bosch Gmbh v. Japan Storage Battery Company (2-00-cv-12590, C.D. CA 2002), declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity by Robert Bosch, in which the court denied JSB's motion for summary judgment of infringement and granted Bosch's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in litigation relating to power tool technology.
  • In one of the Volkswagen litigations Michael has defended (the MHL Tek lawsuit in which Morrison & Forrester represented the plaintiff), Volkswagen's motion for summary judgment was the primary basis for Judge Ward's dismissal of the MHL complaint, and at the time it was one of a very few summary judgment motions ever granted in favor of a defendant in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. On appeal, Judge Ward's rulings were upheld (except one VW motion that he denied; the Federal Circuit reversed that ruling on appeal). The case was a complete victory for Volkswagen.
  • In transactional matters, Michael has advised a wide range of clients (among others, Robert Bosch GmbH, MANN+HUMMEL GmbH, and the former General Electric, p.l.c.) regarding the intellectual property issues relating to patent licensing and acquisitions, and in negotiations with large patent aggregators and non-practicing entities (including Marathon Patent Group, Acacia Research Group, IP Navigation, Alliacense, Sisvel, Papst Licensing, Condatis LLC, Stragent, LLC, and the Jerome Lemelson Foundation).

Insights

In The News

Events

Professional Recognition

Industries

Practices

Education

Admissions

Affiliations

News

View All »